home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: alt.feminism
- Path: sparky!uunet!microsoft!hexnut!jenk
- From: jenk@microsoft.com (Jen Kilmer)
- Subject: Re: Why are many low-income women fat? (was Re: Separate but Equal?)
- Message-ID: <1992Dec23.082529.10340@microsoft.com>
- Date: 23 Dec 92 08:25:29 GMT
- Organization: Microsoft Corporation
- References: <1992Dec15.192754.2012@netcom.com> <1992Dec16.073456.17548@microsoft.com> <1992Dec20.163029.19861@netcom.com>
- Lines: 37
-
- In article <1992Dec20.163029.19861@netcom.com> payner@netcom.com (Rich Payne) writes:
-
- >I did not state that "fat people cannot be physically fit" (another
- >misrepresentation rini), but that they are -not- fit. If the distinction
- >is to subtle, then this thread should die.
-
- You state that people can be fit or fat. Exclusive or.
-
- You state that one who is fat can become fit. That it is all a matter
- of personal choice.
-
- You talk about how one can become fit - but you do not talk about
- how one can become fat.
-
- If you assign no relative value to being either fit or fat, why is this?
- If it's simply that some people have a layer of body fat and some don't,
- just like some are shorter and some are taller, who cares?
-
- If it doesn't matter whether you're fit or fat, and one person can (as
- you assert) change between these two states as a matter of personal
- choice (rather like changing hair color) why are you not talking about
- how to become fat?
-
- Are you not implying that fit is better than fat?
-
- Does it not follow from that that fat is not as good as fit?
-
- And does it not follow from that that fat people aren't as good as
- people who have made themselves fit?
-
- I simply followed your thoughts to their logical conclusion.
-
- BTW: I agree with you that diets are usually destructive. And no, I
- haven't filed any discrimination suits.
-
- -jen
-
-